UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Finally you make a link to the Mufon case file website. There we can find a great deal of second hand speculation but of primary interest are the comments of the first hand witnesses directly involved in the case: the tower controller (Pirouzi) and the general who sent the planes up (Azarbarzin) who confirm the substantial details of the case as reported by the many researchers involved.

What more do you want. The details are confirmed on this site by TWO firsthand witnesses and they are also supported by another firsthand witness, the pilot of the second jet Jafari. What more do you want?

Actually Pirouzi and Azabarzin disagreed on details about the event. Pirouzi stated the F-4 chased the UFO to Afghanistan but Azbarzin said that never happened. If you tell a story to two people, some of the details are going to agree and others will not. That does not make the story true. They are repeating second hand information based on what they were told.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Oh, yes indeed - my mistake. The jet actually would have had to travel 150nm (approx 172 miles – less 29 miles = 143) @ 12.7 miles per minute = approx. 11.3 minutes.

…which of course STILL makes Puddle Duck incorrect.

But not significantly off as you originally stated. In your recent attempt to calculate, you subtracted 29 miles from the distance but the UFO was not towards the airbase (which was to the southwest) but north of Teheran. You can not subtract the 29 miles. Assuming the object was 40nm to the northeast of Teheran (The ATC stated the object was to the northeast) would be an additional 29 miles to travel. That makes it 201 miles or 15.8minutes. Now it could be slightly less of a distance based on the path of the jet. However, your subtracting 29 miles seems like a gross misrepresentation of the facts of the case.

EDIT: After rereading Maccabee's paper, I see where you got the 150NM number and why you subtracted the 29 miles. However, Maccabee's calculations are wrong. He measured 40 nm north of the airport and not 40nm north of Teheran. The distance would not be 172 miles. I took a point 40 nm north of the airport and got 183 miles and with a distance north of Teheran center, I got 197 miles. The numbers will vary depending on where you measure. However, you can not conclusively state where the UFO actually was (Maccabee's paper shows it all over the place).

So okay, I admit my mistake in “taking off” from Tehran instead of Shahrokhi, but that does NOT excuse Puddle Duck in his mistaken calculations. That is, MY calculations were at least mathematically correct, Puddle Duck’s were NOT.

You made a gross misrepresentation of fact. A math error is a mistake in calcuation. You imply that puddle duck is deliberatley alterring his calculations to deceive. Your mistake was far more serious IMO and one could state that was a deliberate attempt to deceive. Of course, you are a self-proclaimed scientist, which makes you always right.

 

[Belgian thought]

Okay… so sunset is approximately 6pm… (taken from Port Moresby …http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=193&month=6&year=1990&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1).

…I should have known better than to take the figures supplied by you originally at face value! Ughh…

But that means little because:

....

But we are not talking about Port Moresby are we?


Port Moresby
Sun Set
26/06/1959 18:01
27 18:01
28 18:01

Boainai
26/06/1959 17:49
27 17:49
28 17:49

Do you agree, that sunset at Boainai was some 11 minutes before 18:00? - A simple yes or no answer please.

 

[Access Denied]

So okay, I admit my mistake in “taking off” from Tehran instead of Shahrokhi, but that does NOT excuse Puddle Duck in his mistaken calculations. That is, MY calculations were at least mathematically correct, Puddle Duck’s were NOT.

Wrong. Unlike you, Puddle Duck has clearly qualified his calculations as BOTE (back of the envelope) where applicable and you’ve yet to prove anything he’s said here substantially “mistaken” enough such that it changes the validity of his arguments. (or casts doubt on his expertise)

In fact, no doubt it would appear, even to the casual observer, the complete opposite has been the case… you have failed miserably in your attempts “debunk” the “head in the sand” skeptics.

I’m sure you’ll keep trying though… you seem to care more about trying to prove other people wrong than you do about proving “aliens” exist. Superiority complex much?

Looking forward to your next EPIC FAIL…

Resident pilot?

Yes, deal with it.

We have no reason to assume that Mooy was “making things up” or flat out lying!

Right, so why are you? Straw man much?

Cover up WHAT precisely?

SNAFU with FUBAR

And to imply that Phillip Klass was directly involved in a UFO cover-up?

How so? Another straw man…

Oh and as a coup-de-gras you contend complete incompetence by Evans of the DIA.

Not complete… more like GIGO.

Bunk!

So when the Air Force tells you…

1.No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.

2.There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.

3.There has been no evidence indicating the sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles.

You believe them? Or is it only when they tell you what you want to hear?

What more do you want?

Documentary evidence that Jafari was the pilot of second jet. Both Puddle Duck and I (repeatedly) have asked you for it and you have completely ignored it every single time.

If you don’t have it, just say so.

 

[Tizzy]

I'll have to draw upon the expertise of others here because I have zero experience with the F-4, but there are some things that (if I have read them right) generate more questions. Puddle Duck, you're a driver, help me out.

This is about the first F-4, but everything has been mashed together so well I'm not sure anymore .

If we assume the F-4 has 9 minutes of fuel using his afterburners (which stage, btw?) and he takes off using (full) afterburners (not uncommon for a scramble and/or loaded jet), and he used up 8 1/2 mins of flight time on the afterburners, in his egress there would be NO way he's landing ANYWHERE but a viable alternate. Am I right?

What I DO know about the F-4 is it doesn't make a good glider (not such a good glide ratio), so deadsticking the landing is probably not going to be fun. Just look at the aerodynamics of it, it's a rocket-sled. Since there was no mention of this, I assume the pilot made it back under his own power.

On the second F-4, he wasn't given a shoot down order, yet he tried to get a heat-seeking missile off to a unidentified bogey OVER Tehran?? Wtf. I also have no clue Iran's procedures for this, so maybe this is normal? A shoot down of a UFO over their capital and most populated city?

This isn't making a whole lot of sense unless I've got the story wrong.

 

[Tizzy]

The avionics technicians who examined the plane(s) after the incident could find nothing wrong. Inadvertently switched off? Now you are supposing incompetence from a highly experienced squadron leader… moreover, if a pilot can “switch off” his own weapons system so easily without knowing it in a “combat” situation, then surely that is a MAJOR design fault in the F-4 and would have been picked up on and corrected MUCH earlier that 1976! No, it is a scenario that just does NOT make any sense at all.

Actually, take the more modern F-16. If I'm not mistaken (trying to visualize), ONE switch is the difference between weapons/no weapons. It's location (what I'm thinking of) is its "MASTER ARM" (upper left panel). It should have three positions, only one of which allows actual weapons.

 

[Sledge]

I love how Rramjet has such overwhelming faith in people. If someone says what they saw wasn't man-made, then there's no way they could be mistaken. A pilot in a high stress situation make a mistake? Never! I wonder if he'd be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge?

 

[Paul2]

After three-freaking-thousand, four-bloody-hundred and sixty-un-croy-able-seven posts, we surely have enough material for multiple dissertations on disordered thought processes and the will to believe.

Someone could (should) make their career on this.

 

[Marduk]

I love how Rramjet has such overwhelming faith in people. If someone says what they saw wasn't man-made, then there's no way they could be mistaken. A pilot in a high stress situation make a mistake? Never! I wonder if he'd be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge?

I sold him that last week, this week I'm brokering a deal for him to pick up exclusive rights to the beatles back catalogue

 

[Puddle Duck]

Puddle Duck…? I assume maths is not your strong point… how did you get to be a pilot…?

Again I suspect Puddle Duck does NOT know F-4s at ALL! I can now safely assume he is NOT an F-4 pilot at all. What a load of rubbish he is providing us! For example…

According to a number of sources the “loaded” weight of an F-4 is 41000 lbs (NOT 49000) AND “Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)!

Lets just provide the full specs so that we can see more clearly Puddle Duck’s errors!

General characteristics
• Crew: 2
• Length: 63 ft 0 in (19.2 m)
• Wingspan: 38 ft 4.5 in (11.7 m)
• Height: 16 ft 6 in (5.0 m)
• Wing area: 530.0 ft² (49.2 m²)
• Airfoil: NACA 0006.4-64 root, NACA 0003-64 tip
• Empty weight: 30,328 lb (13,757 kg)
• Loaded weight: 41,500 lb (18,825 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 61,795 lb (28,030 kg
• Powerplant: 2× General Electric J79-GE-17A axial compressor turbojets, 17,845 lbf (79.4 kN) each
• Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0224
• Drag area: 11.87 ft² (1.10 m²)
• Aspect ratio: 2.77
• Fuel capacity: 1,994 U.S. gal (7,549 L) internal, 3,335 U.S. gal (12,627 L) with three external tanks (370 U.S. gal (1,420 L) tanks on the outer wing hardpoints and either a 600 or 610 U.S. gal (2,310 or 2,345 L) tank for the centerline station).
• Maximum landing weight: 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)
Performance
• Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
• Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
• Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)
• Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
• Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
• Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
• Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
• lift-to-drag: 8.58
• Thrust/weight: 0.86 at loaded weight, 0.58 at MTOW
• Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg)
• Landing roll: 3,680 ft (1,120 m) at 36,831 lb (16,706 kg)

So… runway length = 10000ft (if we believe Puddle Duck and I suspect even THIS now…) and the F-4 needs less that half that length!

Puddle Duck, I simply no longer believe you at this point. You will have to provide evidence for your assertions. It is plain that you have been mistaken in nearly ALL aspects of the F-4 specifications to this point, how CAN we believe you on this point?

I am therefore not going to read any further into your post. I simply cannot take any of your F-4 “experiences” at face value and MUST therefore ignore anything further you have to say about the subject of F-4s until you provide sourced data that shows that what you are stating to be either SOP for F-4s or correct in any other way. Your credibility concerning F-4s has been shot to pieces and I am therefore disinclined to engage with you in any further debate on F-4s. Come back to me when you have sourced EVIDENCE to support your assertions.

Rramjet, it looks as though you didn’t have answers to my questions.

Are you willing to accept that the Dash one is the bible for the aircraft? If yes, then maybe you can learn.
I cannot teach you if you refuse to learn.

I can accept the above specifications for the E model. That list is for the E model only. My Dash one is for C/D models. This says that the weights were increased by about 600 lbs empty, internal fuel moved up by 660 lbs with a max burner thrust increase of 845 lbs/engine/1700 lbs total. The max takeoff weight increases by 3800 lbs and the max landing weight decreases by 10,200 lbs. What became so fragile on the E that max landing weight had to decrease by over 10,000 lbs?
So the upshot of using the E specs is that the overall performances are roughly equal. The extra weight almost balances the extra burner thrust, mil thrust will of course be somewhat less, and will probably come close to zeroing the equation. For any weights I calculate, just add 1260 lbs.. Therefore, until you can come up with the corresponding charts for the E model , we’ll use mine, and you can add the 1260 pounds. When you do get them, please post so I can see the difference if any.


Now let us look at takeoff roll. Yes there is a particular set of circumstances that will give you those particular numbers. A takeoff distance of 4490 ft. will apply for a specific weight, runway location and weather. Anything else will be wrong.

Let me lead you through the original problem at Sharakhi. It was a 40 degree day in the summer with a field elevation of 5600 ft. and a takeoff weight of 58,000 lbs, no wind.

#1- open this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20takeoff%20mil%20solved.gif
Remove the space.
You never attempted to do any of these chart problems. If you had and did the problem, you would have discovered the answer for yourself. I have run the problem for you, but we’ll still go through the problem so that you will understand it.
Print a paper copy

#2- We’ll start at the bottom of graph on the left of the page. The air temperature is 40 degrees, so find it. It is the second large hash from the right. Draw a pencil line straight up it.

#3- Find the field elevation. The curved family of lines are the elevation from sea level on the bottom spaced every 2,000 feet and ending at 10,000 feet. The elevation of 5600 feet is between the third and fourth lines from the bottom. Interpolate about ¾ of the distance up the pencil line. That is the intersection of the temp and elevation.

#4- Draw another line horizontally through that intersection going beyond the graph to the right. You will now have to extrapolate the bottom two lines out to the right and off the graph. Now interpolate vertically from the bottom line that is the 60,000 lb line 3/5ths of the way to the next line up which is the 55,000 lb line. That will be a 58K lb weight. Put a mark there.

#5 Draw a pencil line vertically down to the bottom of the small graph in the center. Extrapolate the ground run line to the right and read the answer. It is just a touch over 18,000 ft. (My bad- I had done a finger follow on the chart before and came up with 20k ft. It’s hard to get a close number when extrapolating outside of the chart. The results are the same though.)

This is the takeoff roll at Sharokhi using only Military power. Are you willing to believe it?

And yes Sharokhi had one runway of 10k ft. in the ’70. It now has two runways of length 12,900,and 14,300 Compare the calculated runs with the present lengths.

As for the takeoff roll: of 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb (24,410 kg) in the PR sheet, use the “Max thrust takeoff chart”
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/TOD_MaxThrust.jpg
and do the same problem as the above. The only difference will be where the horizontal line intersects the weight and then the drop to the roll distance. I guarantee that it will be longer than 4490 ft.

According to a number of sources the “loaded” weight of an F-4 is 41000 lbs. (NOT 49000) AND “Takeoff roll: 4,490 ft (1,370 m) at 53,814 lb. (24,410 kg)!

The “loaded weight” is simply the weight of the plane with everything on it that you plan to fly with. No more, no less. Those “sources” are undoubtedly confusing it with a “ramp weight” consisting of the operating weight plus internal fuel and getting it wrong. Operating weight and ramp weight have very specific definitions in aviation.
Look at this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20ramp%20weights.gif
Look at the right column and go down to “airplane gross weights”. Read the definitions. Below this section are models C and D showing various ramp weights. The different ramp weights are the different fuel loads both internal and auxiliary added to the operating weight


We will now develop a load.. There will be wing tanks, 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinders. Look at the above page again. We’ll use the D model.

Use a piece of scratch paper and write: ramp weight = 47,000

Now go to this page
w ww.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/More%20Charts/F-4%20Stores%20Loading.gif
This is the “stores loading”. It has stores, their weight and their drag. We are using Aim 7s and Aim 9s.
Go down the left column until you arrive at “aim-7E missile, fuselage mounted ( 10th row). Move across that row till you come to the column labeled “weight per store” The 455 there is the weight of each Sparrow, so multiply that by 4 and put 1820 under the 47,000.
Now go down 3 more rows until you see “aim-9B missile”. Again go to the right to the weight column, pick up the weight of 155, multiply that by 4 and put 620 under the 1820. Now you have something that looks like
Ramp weight = 47,000
Aim 7s = 1820
Aim 9s = 620
Add these and you come up with 49,440 lbs. This is the loaded weight for an air alert fighter. Does it look familiar to your “(NOT 49000)”? Could you agree that I am right on these? For the E model just add the 1260 lbs.

I think others have pointed out your error confusing Baghdad with Sharokhi.

Please answer my questions.

 

[Rramjet]

So what youre saying is
that even though there was an american aircraft in that theatre at the time that displays all the claims and technology made in the report, that you have decided not to investigate it based on your belief that aliens are more likely, what drugs did they give you in hospital last week ?
are you unaware that they dropped that particular design because it was dangerous and just don't care what they used next because aliens are soooo much more likely arent they, yet you still havent produced any evidence, and you still havent persuaded one single person that you have it right, this board which compared to most others contains the intellectual elite from the net and only you have it correct, shall we work out the odds that you are a real genius, who just happens to be unable to prove it to anyone, or that youre just delusional and as usual everyone can see it but you

Yes…an American aircraft WAS there… the F-4! And I have read the information on the website carefully. Your D-21 most definitely was NOT there. I repeat “…but the drones were finally put into mothballs in 1973…”! and for extra emphasis…”The fourth, and as it turned out last, flight of the D-21B was on 20 March 1971.”! (http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_05.html#m2) (PS: the other “drones” mentioned on that site do NOT have anything even approaching the technical capacity the UFO displayed … besides the UFO was as large as a 707! How big are your drones?)

So I HAVE investigated the information you provided and it simply does NOT stack up.

“Alien” UFOs are ONLY as likely as the evidence permits them to be. Once we have exhausted ALL reasonable mundane explanations then what are we left with? If it is a “natural” phenomenon…then that is eminently worthy of scientific investigation. If it is a technical “craft” then that ALSO is worthy of investigation. I hypothesise “aliens” and that is consistent with the EVIDENCE. What you CANNOT contend is that nothing happened at all. SOMETHING occurred in these cases I present and I believe strongly they are worthy of scientific investigation.

This board represents the “the intellectual elite from the net”? Oh my friend who is on drugs now? I fear for the future of humanity if this forum represents the “best on the net”!

This is the evidence that you are denying Rramjet
"that theres no blimps on the west coast"

I think you logic is a little warped but if you mean that I am denying ALL blimps on the West Coast then you are sadly mistaken. The historical evidence shows there were NO operational USN or USNR blimps BUT I DO acknowledge at least ONE Goodyear blimp in Salem (about 200miles from Rogue River) but the historical evidence makes it extremely unlikely for it to have been a Rogue River at the time.

"ok so there are some blimps but theyre not the right ones"

What are the “right ones” in your opinion?

"ok so they are the right ones but they don't look like the pictures"

I have NEVER stated anything of the kind. If you can find ANY post of mine that contends such a thing I will quit posting here altogether!

"ok so they do in some angles look like the pictures but the witnesses must be 100% correct"

I have NEVER contended the witnesses to be 100% correct. If you can find ANY post of mine that contends such a thing I will quit posting here altogether!

"ok so the witnesses have been proven to be making contradictory statements but some of them must be right

The witnesses are inaccurate in precisely those aspects of the case that research shows they will be – that is in estimating precise distance and size. That is a point is favour of the witnesses being truthful. If they “made it up” then they would have been totally consistent in ALL aspects.

to finally "lalalalalala its not me thats in denial its you"

I simply present the evidence available. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative.

and we have seen all your claims show to be what they are
a knee jerk reaction to real evidence, which to you is absolutely anathemia isn't it, the idea that you could possibly be a nut is just too hard for you to accept right now, thats ok, I'm prepared to wait until your sanity drops to a point where you are shunned by everything and everyone you know
but are you ?

I will leave it up to readers of this thread to determine whose reaction is “knee jerk” and whose posts address the available evidence.

Oh dear, you breached a forum rule? Got under your skin have I?

A while back, I carried out a (very) un-scientific survey of a totally un-representative group of people

(…)

Conclusive? At least, indicative of something.

Oh man… no wonder you don’t claim to be a scientist! I also “surveyed” a group of people and ALL of them (every single person I surveyed) stated that the drawings looked NOTHING LIKE A BLIMP… NOW where are we? Certainly NOT in the realms of scientific investigation!

Gambling cruiser even states “Your approach to testing is thousands times more fruitful than the dataming of decades old anecdotes.” If Dockie’s approach is “is thousands times more fruitful” then I guess we just abandon the scientific method altogether and like religious cults, determine who is right by who has the most members and can shout the loudest. Woo at the highest level! But that is the staple of the members of this thread – they demand scientific proof and evidence of the highest standards from UFO researchers, but when it comes to their own point of view, no evidence or scientific standards needs to be presented or met at all. Hypocrisy? YOU BET!

Belz…?

What ? No! I asked you what shape is a blimp when viewed face on. It has nothing to do with being in the air or not.

You obtuseness knows no bounds. A blimp viewed “face on” (head on to us mere mortals) along the line of its horizontal axis is circular. BUT you forget a critical point. The witnesses at Rogue River saw an ELLIPTICAL object…but it was elliptical in the HORIZONTAL plane – a blimp would have presented as elliptical in the vertical plane. NEITHER (would have) EVER presented as a pure CIRCLE in the sky. The witnesses INTERPRETED the object as circular because during it approach, oblique transverse and flight away from the observers, its aspect remained the SAME throughout. A blimp’s aspect would have CHANGED substantially during such manoeuvres!

Since the witnesses have no idea what they saw, I find it dubious to claim that their estimates of speed and distance are reliable.

I have always contended, and the evidence suggests, that the witnesses estimates in this area are NOT accurate. This IS in line with what scientific research suggests. BUT “inaccurate” is different from “wildly wrong”.

Let us look at this aspect a little more closely (again). If the object was closer to the observers that estimated it would have been SMALLER than the estimated 35 (or so) feet and THAT is NOT a blimp. If it was further away from the observers than estimated then it would have been larger …but THEN the estimated SPEED would have been faster as well (remember jet plane) and THAT is NOT a blimp either. So whichever way you make the estimates inaccurate it does NOT describe a blimp. THAT is what the EVIDENCE shows. NO BLIMP!

(in reference to the “burden of proof”)

Ramjet, I've told you four times, already. Does that mean you simply disagree with my explanation, or that you didn't even take the time to do the research I suggested ?

I think you have posted on that topic MORE than four times, yet curiously have NEVER explained your own position on the matter… mine is clear.

If I claim “aliens” I am rightly expected to produce evidence for such.
If YOU claim “mundane”, you ALSO must provide evidence for such.

Perhaps now finally you can please explain WHAT precisely you don’t GET about that conception of the “burden of proof”.

I guess that we, humans, like a good story and enjoy the thrill of mystery and excitement but i find it quite bizarre when it degenerates into this unholly mix of 'scientific methodology' and total refusal to look at simple facts and use basic common sense.

…but YOU introduced in your own previous post an “unholly mix of 'scientific methodology'”. You cannot complain about it if you resort to those methods yourself! Hypocritical? YOU BET!

Gambling cruiser’s apporach has nothing to do with science, he just pretends to use the scientific method, but he only supports his fixed believe system. Facts against his believe do, in his bizarre version of subjective reality, not exist and he really believes (UFO researchers) are in denial and unlogical in our behavior.
He's arguments are that of the true believer and anything that doesn't support his speculations doesn't exist to him. (UFO researchers) simple have to be wrong otherwise his believe system is in danger. And that's to threatening to let it happen.
Rramjet if stay with us longer you will find the same behavior repeated by other (members of the JREF) of anything (that does not accord with their own beliefs).

See where this kind of argument leads gambling cruiser…precisely NOWHERE!

Actually Pirouzi and Azabarzin disagreed on details about the event. Pirouzi stated the F-4 chased the UFO to Afghanistan but Azbarzin said that never happened. If you tell a story to two people, some of the details are going to agree and others will not. That does not make the story true. They are repeating second hand information based on what they were told.

It also, by the SAME logic, does NOT make the story false. Second hand information? Pirouzi was the TOWER CONTROLLER and the general was the one who ordered the planes into the air! Second hand? You amaze me Astrophotographer! (Well…on second thoughts…no you don’t…it is par for the UFO debunker course to DENY the evidence in front of them for THAT is the only recourse left to them… certainly they have no rational or logical approach to the EVIDENCE).

EDIT: After rereading Maccabee's paper, I see where you got the 150NM number and why you subtracted the 29 miles. However, Maccabee's calculations are wrong. He measured 40 nm north of the airport and not 40nm north of Teheran. The distance would not be 172 miles. I took a point 40 nm north of the airport and got 183 miles and with a distance north of Teheran center, I got 197 miles. The numbers will vary depending on where you measure. However, you can not conclusively state where the UFO actually was (Maccabee's paper shows it all over the place).

But by the SAME token neither can you or Puddle Duck “state conclusively” where the UFO was… and according to the evidence it WAS “all over the place”!

You made a gross misrepresentation of fact. A math error is a mistake in calcuation. You imply that puddle duck is deliberatley alterring his calculations to deceive. Your mistake was far more serious IMO and one could state that was a deliberate attempt to deceive. Of course, you are a self-proclaimed scientist, which makes you always right.

No, I contend that Puddle duck is incompetent. THAT is entirely different to a “deliberate attempt to deceive.” I made an honest mistake and admitted it. More…YOU were able to verify my calculations (or at least understand how I arrived at the figures I did). How do you verify Puddle Duck’s in the same light?

Do you agree, that sunset at Boainai was some 11 minutes before 18:00? - A simple yes or no answer please.

No.

So when the Air Force tells you…

1.No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.

2.There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.

3.There has been no evidence indicating the sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles.

You believe them? Or is it only when they tell you what you want to hear?

1. Okay…so what…perhaps the aliens don’t want to cause an “interstellar (or intergalactic) “incident”.

2. I submit the Tehran incident for starters. THAT makes the Air Force statement “inaccurate” (to be polite).

3. I agree.

So I actually only disagree with point 2.

Documentary evidence that Jafari was the pilot of second jet. Both Puddle Duck and I (repeatedly) have asked you for it and you have completely ignored it every single time.

…but I HAVE provided this evidence…that you ignored it is NOT my fault! Here it is again…

Parviz JAFARI, General, Iranian Air Force, Ret.
In 1976, as a major and squadron commander, he was ordered by the Air Force Command to approach, in his Phantom F-4 jet, a large UFO observed over Tehran. During a wild cat and mouse chase, he attempted to launch a Sidewinder missile at the brilliant object but at that instant his fire control consul became inoperable. The UFO exhibited an extraordinary degree of maneuverability. Other electromagnetic effects were reported. The object was pursued by a second pilot, recorded on radar and witnessed by a General and experienced air navigation crews. A US Government officer interviewed Jafari in Tehran and the incident was described in a detailed US Defense Intelligence Agency document, released through the Freedom of Information Act. The DIA assessment said “This case is a classic that meets all the necessary conditions for a legitimate study of the UFO phenomenon.” Later, as a General, Jafari became the coordinating officer between the Iranian Army, Navy and Air Force. He retired in 1989. (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_press.htm)

His press Club address can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJydT3AZ370 ) and a transcript of his statement can be found here (http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_press_07/jafari_statement.pdf)

This isn't making a whole lot of sense unless I've got the story wrong.

The whole argument about the F-4 fuel range actually began with PuddleDuck’s claim that an F-4 with wing tanks (extending the range beyond 10 mins) could NOT reach its max. rated speed of just over mach 2.

I then stated that it may not necessarily HAVE the auxiliary tanks on board. BUT there are two things that Puddle Duck has yet to show evidence for.

First that an F-4 with auxiliaries CANNOT reach mach2 and second that his fuel burn figures are accurate.

The argument will go nowhere until those two questions are resolved satisfactorily!

Next the second jet was NOT over Tehran. You stated “This isn't making a whole lot of sense unless I've got the story wrong.” Right! Perhaps you should do a little research on the case before posting again?

ETA: I see Puddle Duck just beat me to the post... I will read that post and hopefully it will answer the two questions just posed) and get back to him ASAP

 

[Marduk]

SNIP

Laughable

 

[GeeMack]

The argument will go nowhere until those two questions are resolved satisfactorily!

There is no argument. You've made a claim and you've been wholly unable to provide any evidence to support it. Until you can offer evidence that aliens exist, and as always your ignorance and incredulity are not evidence, you haven't even begun to argue your case.

 

[Access Denied]

Second hand information? Pirouzi was the TOWER CONTROLLER and the general was the one who ordered the planes into the air! Second hand?

Yes, second hand. General Youssefi, not Azabarzin, ordered the planes into the air and Pirouzi was a civilian in the tower at a civilian airport, not the IIAF base the F-4s were from.

…but I HAVE provided this evidence…that you ignored it is NOT my fault! Here it is again…

Citing Jafari’s promoters who have a vested interest, James “I Know What I Saw” Fox and Leslie “I Got Paid to Sue NASA by the SCI FI Channel” Kean, is not evidence. I asked for documentation.

 

[Tizzy]

Edited for civility.

 

[AWPrime]

“Alien” UFOs are ONLY as likely as the evidence permits them to be. Once we have exhausted ALL reasonable mundane explanations then what are we left with? If it is a “natural” phenomenon…then that is eminently worthy of scientific investigation. If it is a technical “craft” then that ALSO is worthy of investigation.

And yet there isn't enough evidence to even start a scientific investigation.

I hypothesise “aliens” and that is consistent with the EVIDENCE. What you CANNOT contend is that nothing happened at all. SOMETHING occurred in these cases I present and I believe strongly they are worthy of scientific investigation.

There is no positive evidence in those cases that points to aliens.


ps. Using all those Caps doesn't make you look smart or convincing.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

We all know that real scientists use all Caps in their writings to prove what they say is TRUE!!!!

 

[tsig]

Laughable

If he waves his hands any faster we may have another UFO event.

 

[gambling_cruiser]

And change/parroting a post that you don't like is prove that you are a REAL SCIENTIST in possession of the WHOLE TRUTH!!!
Hey Rramjet, did my posting of your behavior hurt your feelings?
Sorry boy, but when you grow up you might find out that scientific discussions are not about believes or feelings and that anecdotes don't count as evidence.
I hate it to tell you, but if you pile your garbage for ten thousand more pages on this forum, it will not magically transform into evidence!

 

[amb]

A warm welcome to Dockie and a great first post.
Occam's Razor rules out little green men from gawd knows where. Rramjet, may I suggest a holiday to area 51 followed by a visit to Roswel. p.s. don't forget your camera.